Feedback for January 2001

Feedback Letter

From:

pam

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Just read An
Introduction to Evolutionary Biology by Chris Colby. This
is a great start for anyone. As a biologist I thought I had
"a satisfactory grasp of it", but I was wrong. I'm now
looking into taking classes in evolution and population
genetics. Chris does a great job explaining everything.
This is a must of everyone!

Feedback Letter

Comment:

Scientist
Chandrs Wickramasinghe of Britain states flatly, Quote: The
general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing
that evolution has been proved. "Nothing could be farther
from the truth". (Quoted by Denton, Page 37). This same
scientist also is quoted as saying, Quote: There is no
basis for any of the basic tenents of Darwinian evolution.
I don't believe there ever was any evidence for it! It was
a social force that took over the world in 1860, and I
think it has been a disaster ever since. (Quoted by Vincent
Ruggiero, Warning: NONSE IS DESTROYING AMERICA, 1994, Page
175). Life cannot come from dead matter. There is not one
shred of truth from Science to account for the presence of
life upon the earth by any means other than a Special
Creation by the great original first cause--GOD--who is
life and the fountain source of all life! Evolution is the
most baseless unscientific nothing ever guessed at and
dreamed up by man. It is the only so-called science that
has absolutely nothing to back any of it up with anything
even resembling a fact.

Response

From:

Troy Britain

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

You are
quite right, Chandra Wickramasighe (a mathematician) along
with his compatriot Fredrick Hoyle (an astronomer) don't
have much use for Darwinian evolution. Then again they
don't much care for special creation either, particularly
the young earth variety. In fact Wickramasighe once said
(during his testimony at the 1981 Arkansas equal time for
creationism trial - McLean v. Arkansas) that a person would
have to be crazy to believe the universe was only around
10,000 years old.

Instead Hoyle & Wickramasighe prefer a variant of
panspermia, the idea that life originated somewhere
in outer space. In fact more than simply believing that the
first simple life forms such a bacteria originated
somewhere "out there", they think it is possible that more
complex types of organisms might have been planted on earth
at different time in its history. For example they believe
that insects might come from outer space, and that they may
be as intelligent as humans but are hiding this fact from
us, and that the changes in life on earth are the result of
a (natural) alien intelligence which has been raining
mutation causing viruses down on the earth throughout
geologic time. (See: Hoyle, Fred and Wickramasinghe,
Chandra (1981) Evolution From Space, chap. 8
Insects from Space?, p.127)

Somehow knowing that these two astronomers think
insects might be as intelligent as humans (not to mention
some of their other odd ideas) makes their misguided (in my
opinion) criticisms of main-stream biology seem even less
biting.

As for your comments regarding the supposed lack of
factual support for evolution, this is simply bombastic
nonsense. Assertion is not argument.

Feedback Letter

From:

George Holzer, DVM

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have just
been introduced to your site, and find it very rewarding
and you are filling a much needed void. I have just
finished reading "Genome, An Autobiography of a Species in
23 Chapters", by Matt Ridley. EXCELLENT book on the what
the Human Genome Project means to the layman. Technically
very accurate and an important adjunct to the evolution
question. This is my field and this is the best book I've
located for this topic.

Feedback Letter

From:

Ethan S.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Your website
is wonderfully made and very informative. I am a 15 year
old attending a private Christian school that teaches
creationism. The lesson was planned out in my biology class
without giving any credit to evolution theories or their
founders or even giving an evolutionist's point of view
(kind of like a trial without any defense). I am very
confused and I feel like they are shoving judeo christian
ideas down my throat that make no sense. I am probably the
only one in my class who believes so. I read the Origin of
Species and it makes much more sense scientifically than
religion or superstition. Could I have some undeniable
proof that I could show my science teacher or present the
class debate without sounding stupid.

Response

From:

PZ Myers

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

You can't do
that. Evolution is hard. It is a huge, complex subject that
isn't trivial to present to a lay audience. You are a young
fellow whose heart may be in the right place, but as you
note, you've just begun to try and figure this stuff out; I
don't think it would be wise to try and confront a hostile
audience, and in particular an audience that wants the
false and simplistic answers of creationism.

I would suggest that it might be a good idea to question
what you are doing in a christian school like that in the
first place. Talk to your parents. Tell them what your
problems are with inadequacies of the 'science' class at
the school. Even if they are sympathetic to the beliefs
espoused by the school, they might be swayed if you point
out that the science class is very poor, and that if you
plan on a professional career in science or medicine, this
might not be the best place to get preparation. I can tell
you that from what you say of your background there, you
would be at a disadvantage in my university classes.

Alternatively, don't confront, just let it slide and
continue to think independently. Your class is a lost
cause, but you aren't. Keep reading. Ask your parents to
buy you some introductory college texts in biology. Browse
amazon.com for popular science books, and ask people here
for recommendations. I think you just have to face the fact
that your 'science' class will be a waste of time.

Feedback Letter

From:

Callie Baylor

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I am an
eighth grade earth science teacher in a part of the US
described by one teacher as "the buckle of the bible belt."
In our discussion of geologic time and evolution, many of
my students recount their pastors' stories of Darwin
"getting religion" on his deathbed by rejecting his
previous theories and "accepting Christianity." Any truth
to this? (I also think it's funny how a man so rejected by
this community suddenly becomes an authority on the subject
of where we came from just by changing his mind.)

That's known
as the "Lady Hope" story,
after its originator. There is almost certainly no truth to
it. Even creationists who have bothered to research the
matter agree -- the Creation Research Society used to (and
maybe still does) publish a pamphlet titled Did Charles
Darwin Become a Christian? which debunked the claim.

Unfortunately, like so many creationist arguments, it
sounds good despite being false. And for that reason alone,
it will probably won't be going away any time soon.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

Holy shit!
What the [censured] kind of website is this? You claim to
be a website of debate but really all you do is put down
creationism with misinterpretations of evidence! Expect a
full rebuttal to your ignorant assertions soon.

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

The authors of our FAQs are very interested in
presenting accurate information. If you have identified
specific inaccuracies, please be sure to email the author
of the article in which it appears.

This archive, though, is not "of debate". The talk.origins newsgroup
provides a forum for debate and discussion. I'm sure that
your commentary posted there would spark a lively
discussion.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

Comment:

Discussions
on the evolution of life, i.e. natural selection of useful
biological processes, often omit reason or thought for the
process of natural death. How can death have evolved?

Responses

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

There does exist a literature on the evolution of death.
Sir Peter Medawar made an argument concerning
senescence around mid-20th century that more-or-less
continues to be accepted today. In order to understand his
argument, it is best to have some grounding in population
dynamics. Senescence can develop and become fixed in a
population because the future expectation of
reproductive value for any organism steadily
declines from an initial high value.

If you use "senescence" as a keyword in a literature
search, I would be very surprised indeed if you did not
find far more material than you will have time to read.

Pianka's "Evolutionary Ecology" cites a 1975
experimental study by Mertz on Tribolium beetles as
evidence for the evolution of senescence, which puts the
topic on an empirical as well as theoretical footing.

Wesley

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

In addition,
there is now a substantial literature developing on the
evolution of cell death, both in development and the role
it plays in the lifespan of the organism. Work is being
done, at Johns Hopkins I believe, on extending the lifespan
of the C. elegans nematode worm, whch has a fixed
number of cells and a strict sequence of development. The
key term for cell death is "apoptosis", so search on that
and "evolution", and you'll get some hits.

Feedback Letter

From:

vishnu

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

What is the
percentage of carbon available on earth? How Common/rate is
it?

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Carbon is
the sixth most abundant element of the universe and forms
roughly 0.027% of the Earth's crust.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Are there
any arguements against the possibility that hominids were
present on Pangaea and their evolution and dispersion was
parallel with the breakup and dispersion of the continents?
This makes the findings of different groups of hominids in
various stages of evolution at different points of the
present continents more understandable. There weren't
multiple sites of origin of separate hominid groups all
evolving within a similar period of time. Granted,
timelines take a bit of stretching, but we can't put
defined time boundaries around any of the groups.
Comments?

The main
argument against such a proposition is the timeline.
It would take more than "a bit" of stretching to place
hominids 200,000,000 years in the past, which is roughly
when Pangaea began to break up. That's more than a hundred
million years before the first primates of any sort appear
in the fossil record.

Feedback Letter

From:

Swiss

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have a
brief question.. I have this Biology teacher and i go to a
technical school. So this means that church and state are
seperate. He asked us to write a paper on creation and
evolution. I retreated and said i am not doing it. So the
principal at my school said i could do another topic. He
gave me the subject of "Chance and Genetics the effects of
Evolution". I just found out that it's the same thing but
worded different. I would like you to tell me if i am right
because this guy is trying to get me to learn about
creation in school even thought it is on my own time.
Thank-You for your time. Sincerely, Swiss

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Chance is in
fact a legitimate part of evolutionary theory, and comes in
several flavours: mutation (random relative to the
"direction" of evolution), historical accident or
contingency (the first species to occupy a "niche" in an
ecosystem is often very hard to displace later; it may be
that the DNA "code" is an accident that got "frozen" in
place); and sampling errors of genes (genetic drift and
founder effects).

However, if your teacher tries to start some kind of a
metaphysical argument about whether evolution implies a
nihilistic view of life, the universe and criminal law,
then he has left science behind, and it is appropriate to
refer the argument to the comparative religion or
philosophical subjects in your curriculum, if you are
offered any.

I hope this helps you

Feedback Letter

From:

Benny Benjamin

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Instead of seeing the phylogenetic tree as I expected,
it was a slide of what seems to be a creationist teaching
by
David A. DeWitt.

I search the Archive for "David A. DeWitt" and "Liberty
University" and found no match.

I find it very disturbing that they teach this staff at
any university. Is this university properly accredited? If
they are then the organization should be aware of what
they're teaching and probably cancel the accreditation. I'm
not familiar with the accreditation system so I leave it
for someone who does to read this.

Response

From:

PZ Myers

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Liberty
University, in Lynchburg, VA, is probably better known to
you as the home base of Jerry Falwell. If you take a look
at their home page,
you will see that they do have a link to their
accreditation. They are accredited as a Christian
university, the misinformed and just plain bad course to
which you object is listed as "Apologetics", not science,
so there isn't much you can do -- except avoid sending your
kids to school there, and if you get the opportunity,
refusing to employ graduates of Liberty University in
science occupations, on the quite reasonable grounds that
their curriculum is demonstrably deficient in that
regard.

Feedback Letter

From:

Dan DeConinck

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

How do
mutations in DNA arise ? Are they random errors in the DNA
at or near the time that egg and sperm come together?

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

DNA is
replicated when cells divide and the chromosomes are
duplicated before they do. This process requires the
involvement of more than 20 enzymes and other proteins,
which separate the strands of the DNA helix, and copy it in
fragments until it is duplicated on each strand.

When this happens, many things occasionally cause it to
"miscopy" or the new strands are in some way malformed.
Repair enzymes remove the damaged section and replace it.
Sometimes, though, these errors are not such that the
mistake gets noticed and the new sequence gets passed on to
future cells.

In multicellular organisms, some cells are usually kept
separate from the rest of the body cells - these are called
the germ cells. If the mutation occurs in a germ
cell precursor, or in the formation of the germ cell
itself, then future organisms can inherit that mutation.
Body cells (somatic cells) that mutate can cause
cancers if the immune system does not detect them and
destroy them. Some mutations in cancerous cells also cause
it to lose the ability to die, and become malignant
cancers.

Mutations are of various kinds. One nucleotide (single
DNA or RNA molecules) might be replaced by another, or a
pair of nucleotides might get inserted, or deleted, or a
section might get inverted (so the sequence is
'backwards'), or a chromosome (the whole segment of DNA)
might get broken, or attached to another, or lost, or an
extra copy made, or the entire set of chromosomes (the
genome) might be duplicated, in a process known as
polyploidy.

What the causes of mutations are is partially known.
Radiation, including UV light as well as radioactivity or
X-rays, can break or knock out a nucleotide. Chemicals
called "mutagens" can cause errors in DNA replication, as
can heat or electrical current. Sometimes stress on a
single celled organism such as a bacterium can cause the
replication process to work wrongly, and increase the rate
of mutation. Since bacteria have their genes in circular
loops called "plasmids", if a mutation occurs in a stressed
bacterium that would have been useful in an ordinary
bacterium, it can sometimes be taken up by one and passed
on - which is how bacteria often develop immunity to
antibiotics.

I am not aware if the fusion of sperm and egg (gamete
fusion) sometimes causes mutations, but I would not be
surprised - however, most mutations in zygotes (fertilized
eggs) tend to make the zygote inviable, and it dies during
gestation.

Mutants are not the sort of things you see in the
X-Men movie or in other science fiction shows. We all have
a high likelihood of there being some mutations in one or
more of our cells. If they are germ cells, and don't cause
harm or actually help, they will probably be passed on to
half of your children.

Mutations can be harmful, neutral or helpful to those
that carry them, depending on the environment. Many are
neutral and get passed on according to the odds. Sometimes
neutral genes become advantageous in new environments later
on.

Feedback Letter

From:

Benny Benjamin

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

I think the archive should have an article or two on Dr.
Kurt Wise. I'm very interested to know more about this
guy.

Feedback Letter

From:

Kevin B.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have read
many things in and about the Bible. I am a true believer in
God. Now since God created the heavens and the earth,
created man, and everything that is here, set time into
motion, told Noah when and how to build the ark and flooded
the earth just to name a few. What make you think that the
laws of nature applies to God? The laws of nature belongs
to God too. As I recall there was something said about the
amount of time it took to load all these animals on the
ark. I think it was said that seven days was not enough
time. Was this seven of their days or seven of our days?
Back then they lived longer and their days was longer than
ours. As the saying goes "This is GODS World, we all who
lives in His world are just squirels trying to get a nut".
It shouldn't take rocket scientist to figure out that all
these things that are placed here on earth is to help
people to learn and to occupy the minds of those who like
to explore their environment for educational purposes (our
benefit). God does not have to answer about the why this or
that or how come this or that, but we do have to answer to
him.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

That is fine
for you. But religion is a personal thing, and the God you
describe has nothing to do with the God in my life or the
lives of many other people. Because everything you say is
based solely upon your personal belief, nothing you say
applies to anything outside your person. If you wish to
communicate about objective things such as the length of
days or reality of a flood, you must find a standard that
is common to everyone. The natural world itself is the only
such standard I know of.

Besides, don't you believe that God made nature before
people penned the Bible? Why do you reject God's primary
work in favor of secondary sources?

Feedback Letter

From:

peter murphy

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah Q

I'm sorry to know that Jesus had to shed blood in such a
painful manner for people like you to doubt his presence
and relevence, im sorry to know that your such a waste of
life.

Jesus loves you and so do I!!!!!!!!!!!

peace and p.l.u.r !

p.s. John 10:9 its a doozie!!!!!!!! Love Peter!

Response

From:

Ed Brayton

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

And you do
so represent him well. How absurd, to profess your love for
us in such a juvenile manner and expect to be taken
seriously. And by the way, "im" should be "I'm", "your"
should be "you're", and "its" should be "it's" in your
little screed.

Feedback Letter

From:

Graham Savio

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I am a firm
believer in evolution, and your site has served only to
further that belief; it is well-organized and persuasive.
However, I recently read an anti-evolution argument on the
internet ( Why
I Disbelieve Evolution) that listed points which I was
unable, with my current knowledge, to refute. I would be
interested in hearing your response to this article.
Thanks.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

You don't
say which of the arguments on Finley's web page you have
trouble with, so I shall touch briefly on all of them.

1. Not enough time for the human genome to evolve --
Although Finley says 0.75 new nucleotides per year is
impossibly high, he doesn't offer any argument against this
except incredulity. There are several facts which make such
a rate plausible:
- Most of human DNA is junk DNA;
- Mutations are very common. Estimates of mutation rates
vary, but there are likely tens of mutations per person per
generation, and more than one per non-junk section of DNA
per generation;
- Many mutations are duplications. These can add hundreds
or even thousands of nuceotides at one shot;
- Sexual recombination makes it so the mutations can
happen in parallel. Thousands of new mutations can occur at
once in a large population, and sex and natural selection
together make it possible for the good ones to get sorted
out and all appear together in future generations.

2. The fossil pattern isn't smooth, but shows abrupt
appearances -- Evolution doesn't claim the fossil pattern
should be smooth. Rates of change will vary over time and
between different species. The incompleteness of the fossil
record means that most fossils give just a snapshot in
time, so abrupt appearances in the fossil record do not
mean abrupt origins. There are gradual changes in the
fossil record, too. See, for example, Don Lindsay's page on
the
foram Orbulina. Human ancestry is another
example of gradual change, despite what Finley says. See
also Robert Carroll's Patterns and Processes of
Vertebrate Evolution (Cambridge, 1997).

3. A minimum complex arrangement of interrelated parts
is necessary -- Here, Finley makes the common but extremely
wrong assumption that evolution works by adding new parts
to existing organisms. On occasion, existing parts will be
duplicated, but mostly evolution works by growing and
modifying existing parts. Quadripeds, for example, did not
evolve by adding a leg to three-legged animals; they
evolved by gradually modifying existing fins into legs.
Note that Finley's only example of a state with no
plausible precursors comes from human engineering; he
cannot find an example from biology.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

"Because
that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God
hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him
from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because
that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themelves to be wise, they became fools."
(Romans 1:19-22)

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

What God
hath shown us, manifest in the world around us, is evidence
for evolution (among many other things). To those who have
carefully studied the issue, evolution is clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made. Romans
1:21-22 looks to me like quite an accurate description of
those anti-evolutionists who deny this reality and glorify
God only as their own interpretations of scripture decide
He should be.

If you had in mind that the passage you quoted was a
criticism of evolutionists, perhaps you should study both
it and the world more closely.

Feedback Letter

From:

Brent Temple

Comment:

I am a
christian. Even though, i've been having my doubts. This
doesn't mean i'm turning towards Evolution are anything,
i'm just starting to not care anymore. It's interesting to
think and reflect about how everyone got here,are we alone,
etc. But it becomes too frustarating when you have
questions that aren't answered in a book you put your faith
in. A book that has been changed so much over the centuries
that it's hard to know weather or not it's authenic. But
it's also frustrating to think that you were made out of
the dirt and water, and evolved from an ape. Kinda takes
the fun out of knowing your heritage. And also knowing that
there is no purpose to life but to be born, live, and die.
Sure you get your freak on inbetween, but that's it! I'm
just not caring anymore, i just want to do what i want
without any limits before i die an old man. But, why do I
have that need to believe in something greater? To believe
in something unseen and unheard? Is God just a lucky charm?
Do we believe "for just in case"? What's your idea on this?

Thanx, Brent Temple

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

I personally
have all kinds of ideas on this, and if you email me I'll
happily discuss them with you (this site is an
inappropriate forum). But there is an error in your opening
sentence - that turning away from Christianity means
turning towards evolution. This is obviously false (you
might be turning towards Islam, or Hinduism, neither of
which shares the established scientific views on the age of
the earth and the evolution of life), and indeed many
Christians happily and consistently accept the science of
evolutionary biology just as they do those of geology and
astronomy.

The advent of science has meant that some accomodation
has had to be made in the theologies of various religions
and denominations, but they have done this without too much
harm to their central message.

Don't abandon your beliefs just because someone
erroneously told you that Christianity and evolution are
incompatible. Science cannot, by definition, address
questions of ultimate importance - it is a way of
addressing local questions only.

Feedback Letter

From:

Jill Farlow

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I would just
like to compliment you (the collective you) on putting
together a wonderful source of information. Although I was
brought up Christian, I have never subscribed to any form
of Creationism (perhaps due primarily to influence from my
father, Dr. James Farlow, who is both a geologist and a
dedicated Christian). I have found it frustrating at times
trying to talk to people who are unwilling to look at the
mounds upon mounds of evidence pointing toward an
evolutionary progression of the earth and its components.
Your website has provided me with a valuable collection of
arguments to use in my encounters. Keep up the good
work!

Feedback Letter

From:

Alex Dolin

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

So are you
saying that God created the universe, and evolution is
true, tring to agree with both sides or do you really trust
in God who is all knowing and true?

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The answer
depends on whom you ask, but very many people do believe
that God created the universe and that evolution is true. A
recent poll found that about 70% of Americans think
that the two beliefs are compatible.

Personally, I believe that the universe is God's primary
work, and that people who value scriptural interpretation
higher than the evidence of the universe, as many
creationists do, are the ones who display a lack of trust
in God.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

You guys
need to seriously re-evaluate your info. You have NO
reliable dating techniques. You can't reproduce the effects
of evolution. You most likely haven't read the Bible. If
you are intent on going to Hell, just keep on going this
way. But if you want eternal happiness, you had better
start turning toward God!

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Perhaps it
is you that should re-evaluate:

Radiometric dating techniques are extremely reliable.
In particular, isochron dating has a built-in mechanism
that warns the researcher if a date is flawed. If there is
no warning, the researcher can be confident that the date
is accurate.

Your assumption that we have not read the Bible is
incorrect. Many of the contributors to this site are
believers of various Christian sects; some have many years
of Biblical study under their belts.

Furthermore, your assumption that evolution requires
atheism is also incorrect. See God and Evolution, to start
with.

Feedback Letter

From:

Randy Crum

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I am engaged
in an email debate on evolution/creationism. (I am
supporting evolution.)

The person that I am debating says that he is in contact
with a number of geologists and none of them believe in
uniformitarianism any more. I believe that is inaccurate,
but he has even supplied a quotation from an encyclopedia
(Groliers) indicating that this is true.

Can you give me an update on the current general
scientific consensus regarding uniformitarianism?

The short
answer is: "some of uniformitarianism, as originally
formulated, has been rejected."

Originally, uniformitarianism included a belief
in a rough uniformity of rate of all natural
processes. For example, the time required to deposit a
given sedimentary formation would have been estimated by
using observed deposition rates for similar present-day
formations. This sort of strict uniformitarianism
has been out of favor for a very long time. Even when it
was in favor, it was recognized as being a convenient
simplification at best.

However, uniformitarianism has always encompassed
much more than that. For example, the uniformity of
existence of natural processes, resulting from a
uniformity in the basic laws of physics. Even though
rate, intensity, and relative importance of natural
processes may change over time, the processes observed in
the present had been operating in the past as well. Those
past processes left traces that look like the traces which
those same processes are observed to leave today. "The
present is the key to the past," is one way that it is
stated.

Modern geologists use the term actualism for
these concepts. You may think of actualism as being
equal to the modern definition of uniformitarianism,
or perhaps as the subset of uniformitarnianism which is
still accepted. The overwhelming majority of modern
geologists accept actualism -- meaning that they
accept a number of the components of
uniformitarianism as it was originally defined.
You'll find a similar definition of actualism in
most introductory geology texts, for example p. 521 of
Cooper et al.'s A Trip Through Time, and p. G-1 of
Dott and Prothero's Evolution of the Earth.

To the extent that geologists have rejected
uniformitarianism, it's of little comfort to the
young-Earth creationist cause. The evidence supporting
actualism quite clearly rules out the history of the
Earth which they desire (for religious, rather than
scientific reasons) to support.

Feedback Letter

From:

Kevin

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have been
studying evolution for quite sometime now,especially the
Evolution/creation debate..im firmlly on the side of
evolution(though i dont dismiss Intelligent Design
totally). But ive been looking at chromosomes recently and
i cant find any information oh how these first formed
through natural evolution, i know the first chromosomes in
bacteria etc were just free floating rings of DNA...how did
these eventually form into the chromosomes of more
"advanced" life? This is perplexing me..id appreciate an
answer...book suggestion etc. Thank you, Kevin

Response

From:

PZ Myers

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

You may be
getting misled by your preconceptions. A primitive ancestor
of all life could have had a very fragmentary genome, with
genes floating about in separate pieces, not rings; it
seems that there has been a tendency to consolidate these
bits and pieces into larger, more robust chunks, the
chromosomes. Bacteria have carried this process farther
along than we clumsy eukaryotes have, not only making nice,
tightly organized chromosomes, but forming them into
elegant rings that nicely solve the special case handling
of chromosome ends.

A nice book that touches lightly on these kinds of
general aspects of the genetic material is Genome,
by Matt Ridley.

Feedback Letter

From:

Mark Fisher

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I would like
to point out that evolutionists and creationists are
products of their worldviews. Everyone (i.e. every single
human being) views science through the lens of their
particular worldview.

One's worldview is predicated upon certain
presuppositions about the nature of science, morality,
meaning, truth, rationality, purpose, metaphysics, etc. For
example, if one begins with the a priori presupposition
that miracles can't happen, or that God doesn't exist, then
the world and all empirical data is viewed on that basis.
An evolutionary paleontologist with an established a priori
bias against creationism and supernatural miracles is not
going to even consider any evidence that may allow for
creationism. But promise him some grant money, publication
in a journal and a little prestige and he will find an
evolutionary link! I have a question for so-called
christian evolutionists who believe life evolved thru
natural processes: Was the Resurrection a natural or
supernatural event? There is absolutely NO natural
explanation for it as described in the bible - it was a
physical resurrection - Jesus ate and was touched by his
followers - it was supernatural according to the bible.
Thus if one supernatural event can occur, others can as
well, e.g. creation ex nihilo. Supernatural events are not
CONTRARY TO science, they are BEYOND THE SCOPE of science.
Big difference. Science cannot explain them as scientists
are mere men with finite abilities.

I challenge any of you to deny that you have
presuppositional worldviews. Are scientists biased?
Absolutely they are - every single one of them (creationist
or evolutionist) because all information is filtered thru
each person's respective worldview. Philosophically and
logically, it cannot be denied.

I would love to hear viable naturalistic explanations
for morality, justice, and truth - haven't heard any yet.
In naturalism, ethics is not logically allowed. William
Provine was honest enough to admit that fact. The only
alternative of course is moral relativism which is easily
refuted with simple arguments based on logic, human
experience, and human practice.

I attack evolution on the philosophical level - where it
fails miserably! Got any philosophers over there?

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

You are
correct that people's reasoning and conclusions are
affected by their preconceptions. But there are several
ways of minimizing these effects:

- Provide an objective method of deciding disputed
issues. Science gives such methods (allowing evidence to be
directly examined by anybody and making predictions based
on theories). The only method creationism offers is
policial campaigning.
- Encourage the challenging of ideas. Science does this by
requiring publication and rewarding new ideas. Einstein
didn't get to be famous by saying all the scientists before
him were right. Granted, scientists could do better with
this, but they are nowhere near as hostile to challenging
ideas as creationists are. Also, scientists are an
extremely diverse group to start with. Although any given
scientist is sure to have preconceptions, there is no such
preconception among scientists as a whole. No, not even
philosophical naturalism.
- Recognizing common sources of biases and counteracting
them. Science does this by using such tools as statistics,
control groups, and blind and double-blind protocols.
Creationism doesn't.
In short, science recognizes the problem of biases and
deals with it. Creationism, on the other hand, couldn't
even exist without biases.

History is also against your thesis. New scientific
theories such as evolution, plate tectonics, quantum
physics, etc. have triumphed despite preconceptions being
almost universally against them at first.

I am curious why you limited your challenge to
evolution. Would it not logically apply equally to all
sciences? Does the fact that almost everyone today has a
preconception that the earth is round mean that we should
be particularly skeptical of that theory, or do you think
that there actual physical bases for such ideas?

On your other topic, ethics are based on human social
interaction and can arise from evolving as a social
species. For example, altruism benefits the giver because
when others see someone acting altruistically, they are
more likely to give to that person. [Wedekind, C. &
Milinski, M., 2000. Cooperation through image scoring in
humans. Science 288: 850-852.]

Feedback Letter

From:

Dr. Charles W. Brown

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

It's pretty
simple. Egg-laying (oviparity) evolved several hundred
million years ago. Chickens evolved, or were domesticated,
from jungle fowl, less than ten thousand years ago.
Anything quite like a chicken evolved much later than
organisms that laid eggs, indeed birds evolved from
egg-laying organisms; either dinosaurs or something closely
related to dinosaurs. And it happened while dinosaurs were
still around. In evolutionary biology, this is called a
"primitive" trait, or a plesiomorphy, and it is retained,
among others, by turtles, reptiles and fish (reptiles and
fish are not "natural" groups, but the common meaning is
enough here).

Feedback Letter

From:

Edward Horwood

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

When life
first appeared on Earth, the organisms were obviously very
basic. Without a brain of somekind, which these organisms
obviously didn't posses, there could be no processing of
external senses. These senses were and are very important
for survival. After all, if you had no external senses, how
would you hope to find any food. My question is, if there
was a mutation in an organism and light sensative cells
developed, how did they know to connect to the brain and
allow image processing. In fact, how did the light
sensative cells know they could react to light and allow an
image of the outside world to be formed with processing. To
me this cannot occur any other way than having an
intelligence guiding them. If the brain developed before
the senses, where did the intelligence come from to create
the cells for senses and create a complicated structure to
connect them to the brain and process the data. If
scientists manage to ever re-create the exact conditions
required and life forms in the lab, I can see them going on
dividing for ever and a day and never getting as complex as
lifeforms we have today. DNA is a wonderful concept, it is
flexible and can adapt to many environments and so I belive
it was created and used as a tool. If I give my son a huge
lego kit, he could build countless models. Science would
say that because they are all made from Lego they came from
a common ancestor but in fact they havn't. The lego was a
flexible building tool and each model was created
individually. If 2 models are identicle apart from one
brick then science would say that one came from the other,
but we know it didn't. Is there any proof to suggest that
DNA wasn't the building block used by God to create a vast
amount of lifeforms.

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Contrary to the reader's assertion, brains are not
necessary to sensing - and reacting to - external stimuli.
Since this erroneous assertion underlies all the further
commentary, I'm afraid that rather little remains of the
reader's argument.

Even bacteria can show chemotaxis, orienting and moving
along gradients of chemicals in their environment. Some
bacteria even have the ability to orient to magnetic
fields. Paramecia have an avoidance reaction, whereby
contact with a negative stimulus causes a reversal of
ciliary motion and a partial turn before forward motion is
resumed. Certain non-motile cilia in Paramecia are thought
to be entirely sensory in function. Gamete release in
sponges can be triggered by the detection of sperm released
by other sponges. The cnidocytes of the cnidarians trigger
on mechanical and chemical cues. Cnidarians also have a
nerve net arrangement, which receives activation from
specialized sensory cells. Certain jellyfish orient to
light or gravity, exposing photosynthetic symbiotes to
sunlight. Aurelia spp. have light-sensitive ocelli.
Cubomedusans have complex eyes with a lens, and are able to
orient to point light sources.

None of the organisms above have brains, yet all are
able to respond functionally to external stimuli. Even
image processing can - and obviously does - occur in the
absence of a brain, contrary to the reader's assertion.
More exposure to invertebrate zoology might help the reader
in figuring out what is within the realm of
possibility.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

Comment:

For evoluton
to be true 1. The first thing to have ever existed would
have to have evolved out of nothing. 2. Intermediate
species would be as plentiful as there are grains of sand
on the earth. There are NO intermediate species. If there
was a law that said evolutionists could only write about
their theory(I guess) if they used provable facts, they
could not write even a dot of an i or a cross of a t.
Darwin himself greatly doubted his own theory before he
died.

Response

From:

Troy Britain

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Regarding
your first claim, evolution has nothing to do with
something "evolving" out of nothing. Perhaps you are
confusing (as many creationists do) hypotheses and theories
about the origin of the universe (and the energy &
matter therein), with evolution which deals with the origin
of species (from other species), the history of life on
earth, and the current diversity of that life. Theories
about the origin of the universe are part of the science of
cosmology, not evolutionary biology. If you have questions
concerning scientific explanations for the origin of the
universe I suggest you consult a cosmologist, or the widely
available literature on the subject.

As for your second claim, it is simply false. While it
is true that according to evolutionary theory there will
have been innumerable intermediate species throughout the
history of life on earth, it does not follow that we would
expect to have a perfect record of all (or even a
significant fraction of) those species. There are a number
of good reasons for this ranging from the nature and
frequency of fossilization to the processes by which
speciation occurs. However despite these things we do have
a fairly good record of the evolution of life on this
planet and this record includes many examples of fossils
intermediate between different fossil groups and between
fossil and living groups. See (and these only discuss
vertebrates):

Next you comment about "provable facts" (empirical,
intersubjective, evidence) supporting evolution. If you are
really interested in learning about the evidence, there are
libraries full of literature which describing it in detail.
I suggest you spend some time perusing the contents of the
science libraries of your nearest university.

Lastly you repeat the old myth about Darwin supposedly
questioning his theories just prior to his death. Sorry but
the evidence simply does not support the veracity of this
story. See:

Of course whether or not Darwin ever doubted his
theories is irrelevant to their current scientific status.
Science does not accept or reject theories based on
authority (even if the authority is the originator of the
theories in question), so even if Darwin had become a
flaming young earth creationist on his deathbed it wouldn't
change anything scientifically speaking.

Feedback Letter

From:

Craig

Comment:

I recently
came across a creationists book titled 'Everything You Know
Is Wrong Book on Human Evolution' by Lloyd Pye. Just
wondering if you have any information and/or critiques on
his work?

Thanks!

Craig

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Not
specifically, though Pye has come up from time to time in
the talk.origins newsgroup.
Chris Ho-Stuart addressed a question about Lloyd Pye in the
November 1999
feedback. Pye's views derive from those of Zecharia
Stichin; he disagrees with the "scientific" creationists,
but also says some fundamentally silly things about "yetis"
and "sasquatches."

and I read that no evolutionist has taken his offer in
15 years. I am not an expert in any of this, but it is
really surprising that NO evolutionist would accept a
scientific, written debate that would be published for the
general public to make up their mind.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The
creationist you refer to is Walt Brown. When Joe Meert
accepted Walt Brown's debate terms four years ago, Brown
was the one who refused to participate. Meert's story is at
Walt
Brown's Pseudochallenge.

Brown's
challenge comes with hoops that any prospective debater
must jump through. I am not surprised that few people wish
to jump through his hoops, especially since most PhD's
(getting a PhD is one of Brown's hoops) don't see anything
in creationism worthy any scientific attention at all. If
Brown wants to debate, he is free to do so. There are many
scientific journals he can write to if he wishes.

Feedback Letter

From:

Rocky

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

How can you
call something a theory when, by definition, is not a
therory? this is nothing more than an agreed upon
hypothesis with no "scientific" support

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

The referent for "this" is unclear.

If Rocky is referring to any of the various forms of
anti-evolutionary conjecture, he is being too kind in
giving them the status of hypothesis.

If Rocky is referring to one of the many evolutionary
mechanism theories of biology, he is simply in ignorance of
the vast amount of theoretical and empirical work that
underlies those theories.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

From:

paul

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Considering
how many "How can you deny God" comments that you get in
the Feedback, I thought you might be interested in this
little tidbit.

Theodosius Dobzhansky is one of the most famous
evolutionary biologists of all time, and is credited with
saying "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light
of Evolution."

However, in his book "Debating Darwin," John C. Greene
attributes the following quotes to Dobzhansky as well:

"Evolution (cosmic + biological + human) is going
towards something, we hope some City of God."

These are not the sayings of a God-denying atheist, but
of an evolutionist who believes in God.

You may want to include Dobzhansky in your "God and
Evolution" section as an example of how even the prominant
evolutionists are not "denying God."

Feedback Letter

From:

Dick THompson

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

This is a
marvelous site (of course!). I have learned a great deal
from it.

I have one criticism. I don't think Mark Isaak's
response to Jim Ross in the December 2000 feedback was
entirely fair. Jim expressed a certain dismay at what
evolution, as he saw it, did to his personal beliefs. And
Mark essentially rejoiced at that and tried to proselytize
Jim to an alternative theology.

Here is an interpretation that I have heard in the
Catholic tradition. I does depend on particular Catholic
beliefs, which others are free to reject, but they may help
Jim and others to come to their own rcconciliation with
evolution. Here goes. 1. Evolution happened (and is
happening) and eventually creatures evolved whose nervous
systems could support souls. And God did ensoul them. 2.
They (we may as well say Adam and Eve) could have existed
in an ensouled and sinless state, free of animal death,
sex, and the pains of childbirth (I'll get to that in a
moment). But they sinned, following the ways of their kin,
who were still animals. As a result of that, we are born,
suffer, and die as the animals do. 3. To guess at what the
sinless state might have been like, we can look at the
Blessed Virgin Mary, as Catholics believe. She was
conceived without sin, and lived without sin. She also did
not die, but was "Assumed" into heaven, her natural body
passing seamlessly into whatever glorified body might be
implied. Now what if these miraculous properties were not
just special graces to the Virgin but the common fate of
anyone in the state she was in, sinless. Thus Adam and Even
could have escaped death as she did. To lift us up out of
the animal condition into which we are born, Jesus gave his
life so that we might receve baptism.

I am not trying to convert anyone; I don't know if I
believe it myself, but it does get us off the no Adam - no
Fall - no Salvation treadmill.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

I
interpreted Jim's feedback differently, as a question he
simply didn't have a ready answer to, not as a dismaying
challenge to his beliefs. I was not trying to proselytize,
but simply give my view. But you are correct that I should
have emphasized that it was just one possible view. Thank
you for the criticism and the alternative interpretation. I
don't like it when others imply that their personal
religious views apply to me (which is mainly what drew me
into the origins controversy), and I shall try harder to
make sure I don't make the same mistake myself.

Feedback Letter

From:

larissa macdonald

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

i am just a
student who had a friend who was very adament on the
subject of evolution. i talked to him about it, and found
out what he knew. my curiosity was arroused. why i am aware
evolution is a very touchy subject, and you have to be able
to understand the details. so i took upon myself to learn
all i could. and with the help of my trusty pal, and
numerous biology books, and oh yes! even a bible, i came to
the great conclusion that there is NO possible way for
evolution to account for the great complexity life is
composed of. how is it concievable to believe that
something as complex as a cell or even as an eye, arose
completely by chance? it's like saying, if i stop claning
my room, maybe a chimpanzee will evolve from the clutter.
why is it so hard to accept an intelligent hand helped
guide life along? why are we made to believe a theory that
can't hold it's own?

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

If you
believe that evolution says complex organisms arose
completely by chance, then you have not learned the first
thing about evolution. Such structures did NOT arise by
pure chance; they evolved.

Why is it harder to believe in evolution than to believe
that God is so shortsighted that He needs to tweak and
correct His designs every few decades?

Feedback Letter

From:

Markus Hanrath

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Is it
possible to get the site on CD?

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Unfortunately, no. There was some talk about doing so, but
I think the end result was (1) we wanted to ensure that the
site be kept up-to-date, so that outdated material wouldn't
be floating around; and (2) the cost of burning and
providing CDs was prohibitively expensive and
time-consuming for this network of volunteers. Of course,
all that is really required is for someone to actually do
it.

If we do decide to make the archive available on CD,
we'll make that clear somewhere on the site.

Feedback Letter

From:

Sam Knox

Comment:

I read from
a creationists source that calculations have been made that
find even if the earth is 4.6 billion years old, this would
not be enough time for all those mutations to have occured
to account for the wide diversity of life from a common
ancestor. Just look at all those millions of different
insects alone, evolving step by step. So is there enough
time for evolution?

Response

From:

PZ Myers

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Yes.

Feedback Letter

From:

Barton Paul Levenson

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

A question
more than a comment: If I accept evolutionary biology, do I
have to accept sociobiology as well?

Response

From:

John Wilkins

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Not
necessarily. It all depends on what you mean by
sociobiology. It is factual that humans are predisposed to
behave in certain ways by their biological natures, and
this bears investigation but traditional sociobiology and
its modern offshoot evolutionary psychology tends to rest
on the assumptions that all facets of human behaviour are
(1) biologically determined, (2) optimised by selection,
and (3) genetic. All or some of these assumptions can be
held open to question. There is a spectrum of possibilities
ranging from such uncontentious claims that we like sugary
and fatty foods as a hedge in times of drought, through to
claims that certain aspects of social organisation are
biologically determined (these have in the past included
claims that monarchy or dictatorship, aristocracy or robber
baron capitalism are all the result of natural selection).
You can draw your own lines between those claims that must
surely be true (the sugar claim) and those that must surely
not be (can capitalism really be the end result of natural
selection on hominids in the Pleistocene?).

Feedback Letter

From:

Stephen D. Holle

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I entered
your site hoping to find an unbiased look at the
Evolution/Creation controversy. It appears that I don't
need to go beyond the titles of your catagories to read
your bias, "Arguments against Creationism" and "Biology and
Evolutionary Theory." Why not be honest and not waste
peoples time and list your site as the
Pro-Evolution/Anti-Creation site. By the way, I read your
section on bias and your correctly admit your bias there.
Why not have the guts to do it on the opening page?

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

When I bring up the opening page, I find this text:

This archive is a collection of articles and essays,
most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or
another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is
to provide mainstream scientific responses to the
many frequently asked questions (FAQs) and frequently
rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins.

It sure looks to me like a statement of perspective.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

From:

C. Simpson

Comment:

I can't
quite get a fix on the last line in a paragraph about
Darwin in my new college history text (Albert Craig's "The
Heritage of World Civilizations.") The paragraph reads:

"By 1900 evolution was widely accepted by scientists,
but not yet Darwin's mechanism of natural selection. The
acceptance of the latter within the scientific community
really dates from the 1920s and 1930s, when Darwin's theory
became combined with the insights of modern genetics. Yet
the role of natural selection is still controversial within
the scientific community."

Is this accurate? It seems like a slippery cop-out,
i.e., "Evolution is a fact, but natural selection is not a
fact, in which case evolution is not a fact."

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The quoted statement is pretty much accurate. Darwin's
work pretty much established the concept of common
descent as acceptable to scientists, but Darwin's
proposed mechanism of natural selection was not
immediately or universally adopted. The re-discovery of
Mendelian principles of heredity were at first considered
inimical to Darwinian natural selection. It was only when
the modern synthesis was formulated that natural
selection became generally accepted as a sufficient
explanation for adaptive traits in species. But even that
acceptance does not reduce the controversy over how much of
evolutionary change is due to the action of natural
selection. Many researchers argue for a large or
predominant role for the neutral theory, which
asserts that most change occurs without selection coming
into play.

The statement isn't calling the fact of evolution into
question, but is noting that the relative importance of
natural selection as a mode of evolutionary change is still
controversial.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

From:

Glen Reel

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

In the
course of your question and answer sequence, you state that
the world is 4.5 billion years old. That means that is has
a beginning. In fact, the entire universe has a beginning.
(According to the Big Bang Theory, the age is 15 billion
years.) Ex nihilo - nothing became something. Frankly, this
is one of the most powerful arguments for creation that
exists - and it is put forth by scientists and, in the case
of the age of the earth - the evolutionists. How do you
reconcile this?

Response

From:

Tim Thompson

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

There is
nothing to reconcile. You may have misunderstood the
purpose of this archive. It is not our contention that
there is no God, nor is it our contention that the universe
was not "created". Indeed, many of the contributors to this
archive would hold out strongly in favor of both
propositions. However, the contributors by and large agree
that (1) biological evolution is a sound theory of science,
and (2) the age of the earth and universe is very much
closer to 15,000,000,000 years than it is to 10,000 years.

With that out of the way, let me point out that Big Bang
Cosmology does not propose creation ex-nihilo, that
"nothing" somehow became "something". Rather, the general
relativistic interpretation is that the initial state of
the universe is undefined; it may have been "nothing", or
it may have been "something", but general relativity cannot
tell which. However, I am confident that the vast majority
of scientists, whether religious or not, would reject the
idea that the initial state of the universe was truly
"nothing" (I personally do reject that idea). The matter
will be resolved with the demonstration of a valid, quantum
gravity theory, a version of general relativity that
incorporates quantum mechanics in its theoretical
structure. That will eliminate the undefined nature of the
initial state of the universe, and permit us to consider
what came "before" the Bang. At the moment, the most
promising candidate for such a cosmology is string
theory.

Feedback Letter

From:

Greg McDowall

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I might be
considered one of the religious nuts, in the sense that
macroevolution conflicts with my religious beliefs. However
I do not agree with the zealots who believe that it should
not be taught in public schools. There is a lot of evidence
for evolution, but much of it I think could apply to
creationism as well. Natural selections, for instance,is
one of the mechanisms for evolution. Yet from a creationist
standpoint, it would be unwise for a Creator to leave
organisms without the means to adapt and survive in
changing environments. Also, though genetic similarities
between different species could be interpreted as evidence
of a common ancestor, such a conclusion is not necessarily
true. I believe that a Creator capable of creating such a
complicated universe is a Being of supreme order. Does it
not follow that His creations would as well?

Response

From:

Troy Britain

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

The problem
with the common design "explanation" (which I assume is
where you're going with this) is that it is pretty much
untestable. This is because design, unlike evolution
(descent with modification), is not constrained in what
sort of predictions one might make based on it. Sure a
designer might use similar genes (or structures) in
the design of very different sorts of animals (fruit flies,
starfish, and elephants), but he/she could also choose not
to do so. He/she might just as well choose to start from
scratch each time. This is problem enough with a limited
human-like designer, but it gets even worse when you
postulate a god-like designer that is without limitations.
God can do or make anything, in any way, so no set of
facts, no conceivable observation, could possibly conflict
with this explanation. It could even be that a designer
could have designed things in such a way as to make them
look like they were not designed at all! Thus such
explanations are completely insulated from any possible
disconfirming test or observation. This doesn't make them
necessarily wrong, it just means they're not scientific
explanations, so there's no way to tell how accurate they
might be.

Evolution on the other hand is constrained in
what sort of observations we might be able to make. For
example, if it had turned out that the genetics of
organisms classified into different phyla or classes where
based on radically different systems (as opposed to them
all using the same system, which they do), then this would
have put a serious kink in the hypothesis that they all
share a common ancestor.

You have to understand that science is not about coming
up with an idea (based in religion or otherwise) and then
looking for facts to support it. Rather the purpose of
science is to take the known facts of the natural world and
to produce testable explanations (theories) for them. Such
theories should also suggest new tests and observations by
which they can be further refined (or even replaced). Thus
they stimulate further research.

In the case of evolution Darwin did not come up with
common descent with modification, via natural selection,
purely out of his imagination only to then set about trying
to support the idea. On the contrary, what he did was to
take numerous disparate facts/observations already well
established at the time (mostly by creationists) and tried
to come up with a testable, coherent, explanation for them.
Something his (creationist) scientific contemporaries had
failed to do. This included evidence from:

* The fossil record (its progressive pattern and the
existence of intermediate forms).

* Systematics (the way in which organisms could be
classified into a nested hierarchy).

The pattern of evidence found in all these areas was,
and is, highly consistent with descent with modification.
Any alternative scientific explanation must give an
even better, testable, coherent, explanation for the
data from all these areas, and I'm afraid "it is thus
because it pleased the Creator to make it thus" is not such
an alternative.

Feedback Letter

From:

Rene Lamothe jr.

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

This isn't
really a comment as it is a question, you see I have an
idea for a project that has been tumbling around in my
brain for a few years. In order to bring this idea out and
into the light of day I have to research creation stories
from around the globe and wish to know were to look for
research materials, what books, by which authors,whom I can
contact and so forth. I understand this is a tall order and
people make careers out of things and I'm not asking out of
hand but to start something I need to do. Learning about
these stories is the first and most important step.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Barbara
Sproul's Primal Myths (HarperCollins, 1979) collects
many creation myths from around the world, in as close to
their original form as possible. Another good book devoted
to creation myths is David & Margaret Leeming's A
Dictionary of Creation Myths (Oxford, 1994). Also, I
just picked up a copy of Charles H. Long's Alpha: The
Myths of Creation (Scholars Press, American Academy of
Religion, 1963). I have barely flipped through it yet, but
it appears excellent.

I haven't researched web resources much. Universal
Myths and Mysterious Places is the only web site I know
of that collects a significant number and diversity of
creation myths, but they are somewhat abbreviated. Chris
Siren's Myths
& Legends page has many links to other mythology
sites, and you're sure to find creation myths on some of
them.

Feedback Letter

From:

thomas lentz

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

During a
recent class lecture I had a question which was not
directly answered and that I can't find an immediate answer
for. In both Batesian and Mullerian Mimicry it is vital
that the mimicked creature exhibit some characteristic that
prevents predation. This is the only explanation for the
vibrant and often flagrant coloration some species are able
to exhibit and still survive. It is reasoned that predators
learn from these coloration patterns whcih prey is "good",
does not exhibit an unsatisfying characteristic, and which
prey is "bad", does exhibit an unsatisfying characteristic.
These bright colors are in fact a supplement to species
survival in these cases. Mimicry of these bright and
flagrant colors is often the explanation for convergent and
linked evolution observed between species. Often a
non-noxious organism will exhibit traits very similar to a
close noxious organism and then gain protection from
predation due to the predators learned distaste for the
noxious form. One specific example is the relationship
between the Viceroy and the Monarch butterflies. Because Chris
Colby states that the Viceroy may be noxious I will use
another example. The Bumble Bee is mimicked by a moth that
very much resembles the typical yellow and black bee. Even
humans might be unable to tell the difference without
careful observation. It can easily be reasoned then that
this mimicry is the result of a long trial of evolution for
both species. But my question is: why would the Bumble Bee
not be more diverse in its appearance? For the moth to have
successfully survived on mimicry this long insinuates that
the bee has been around for a while and that its form has
either stayed constant or changed gradually enough for the
moth to keep up. And throughout this period the bee must
have also been noxious for the moth to survive with such
bright coloration. Yet the Bumble bee population is quite
uniform in coloration. If the bee has been noxious for some
time then gradually the bee population should be able to
diversify. This is not saying that extreme mutations among
the species should survive but that small changes should
have slowly developed. I would like an explanation for why
we see some forms of noxious organism's, like the bee, in
such limited form as their yellow and black
coloration?

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The bee's
advantage in having bright warning colors (and the moths',
too) comes from the predators being able to recognize them
and avoid them. Bees that are born looking different don't
have this advantage (or have less of it, if they look just
slightly different), so the predators are more likely to
attack them. Predators can learn to avoid more than one
appearance of insect, but the appearance with the largest
population of noxious insects gets learned about most
quickly and by most predators, so it is always at a
selective advantage over other appearances. Thus natural
selection acts to keep coloration uniform.

If non-noxious mimics become plentiful ("Batesian
overload"), it has been hypothesized that this would cause
the noxious animal to diverge from its normal pattern to
escape mimicry. Apparently, though, the purifying selection
described above is almost always stronger than diversifying
selection from mimicry load. (See the reference below.)

There are other factors that can cause variation in
appearance. It is common for different warning colors to
occur in different regions, for example, and if the
Mullerian mimics are much commoner than their predators,
purifying selection is weak.

For lots more information on this fascinating subject,
see Mallet, J. and Joron, M., 1999. Evolution of diversity
in warning color and mimicry: Polymorphisms, shifting
balance, and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and
Systematics 30: 201-233. If you really get
interested, there are 652 references on mimicry at MORE
THAN 650 MIMICRY REFS.

Feedback Letter

From:

Mark Fisher

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Until
evolutionists can solve the "information problem" which
they have not even remotely come close to doing,
Neodarwinism is a dead duck. I would like someone to tell
me precisely how information is added to the genome. Good
luck - you are going to need it!

Response

From:

Wesley R. Elsberry

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Also, the reader should examine William A. Dembski's
Design as a Theory of Information, wherein he will find
one of the leading "intelligent design" proponents
attempting to quantify the maximum number of bits of
information that natural selection can fix in a population
per generation. The analysis fails to accurately do this,
but it shows that even anti-evolutionary theorists may
agree that information in the genome can increase.

In general, all anti-evolutionary "information theory"
challenges are premised upon trying to conflate
meaning with information. This is why Lee
Spetner doesn't want to discuss quantification of
"information", why Royal Truman dismisses Shannon's concept
of information, and why William Dembski deploys the concept
of "specification" to obtain complex specified
information.

Wesley

Feedback Letter

From:

Adrian Yearwood

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I am a
Christian and I have been reading your site for the past
two months with great interest and learned quite a bit. I
also admire your very carefully structured and researched
responses. (some a little too sarcastic though)

Here goes me....

I have made the following observation. Proving that God
created the universe (Genesis account) through scientific
methods is not very likely. Why? Because belief in God and
by extension His creation, is a matter of faith. Would we
believe that God is the creator had He left a CD ROM in
Quick Time movie format nestled between some layers of
rocks somewhere labelled GENESIS 1 (THE UNEDITED VERSION).
I guess we won't believe that either would we. No. But
seriously folks, if you found evidence to support a global
flood, a young earth, Noah's Ark or tablets of stone called
the ten commandants would you change your position? I don't
think so. Because it still requires blind faith. I am sorry
but it does. When last did you demand that your spouse
produce hard scientific evidence that they love you? Or
your parents. "Mom, Dad, I would like some hard facts to
prove that you really love me or I just can't accept it!"
But you felt it and knew it was real. Call me simple
minded, but I believe that some things just weren't
designed to be explained by science. Looking forward to
your feedback. Thank you.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

The word
"faith" means different things to different people. It can
include any or all of conviction, confidence, trust,
loyalty, acceptance, and belief structure. Your use of
"blind faith" suggests you mean belief without evidence,
and I shall use that interpretation below.

You are probably right that it is a matter of faith
whether or not God exists or was ultimately responsible for
the universe's existence. However, it does not follow that
everything regarding origins is a matter of faith. Evidence
does exist, for example, for an old earth and lack of a
global flood. See The
Age of the Earth and Problems with a Global
Flood. Belief based on this evidence, by definition
(subject to my qualification above), is not faith.
(Evidence exists for such things as love, too. I think most
people would agree that people can recognize a loveless
relationship and that such a relationship is not likely to
last as long as one where the love is evident. Just because
something can't be rigorously quantified doesn't mean there
is no evidence for it.)

You are also wrong that scientists would not change
their positions in the light of contrary evidence. It has
happened before. In the early 19th century, scientists were
predominantly creationists who believed a young earth and
global flood. When they examined the evidence, they found
it showed otherwise, and that is how we got to where we are
today. (Davis Young's Christianity and the Age of the
Earth contains a good history of these changing views.)
If evidence for a young earth or global flood were found,
scientists would initially be skeptical, but if the
evidence held up under scrutiny, they would change their
minds again.

Feedback Letter

From:

Roy Gernhardt

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

Wow. I am
genuinely impressed by your web site and your wealth of
knowledge on the subject.

As a Christian (who happens to believe in creationism),
I am deeply saddened by the tone and nature of much of the
feedback from other Christian creationists.

I respect the fact that you are making logical,
complete, and non-inflammatory arguments. You are one of
the few sites on the web to fit that bill.

I am sorry that those of us who disagree are not giving
you the same courtesy.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Response:

Thank you
very much. We try very hard to present a calm and rational
discourse on these topics, and we are heartened to see that
we do, at least sometimes, succeed.

We invite you, and all our readers, to explore this site
in more depth, but also to explore the other sites listed
in our extensive list
of links and, most importantly, to read the primary
literature referenced in our articles.

Feedback Letter

From:

ali suat urguplu

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

i am a
layman with a profound interest in the sciences, especially
life sciences.

i have a question to ask:

every scientific theory is liable to have facts in
favour and against it, and the theory of evolution should
be no exception if it is a scientific theory. if you are in
support of a theory in an informed manner, you should also
be aware of its weak points (to the best of my knowledge,
no theory postulated by man is entirely free of weak
points).

are there any "ugly facts" that make life difficult for
evolutionists? i have two examples in mind, about which i
would appreciate more information.

a.) organs of perfection: e.g. the human eye (try to
change anything, and you'll go blind). the bombardier
beetle (stores two different chemicals in its body which it
keeps separate. when threatened, spurts both separately
onto the aggressor, which explode when they get into
contact. change anything, and you have a race of exploded
beetles).

b) improbability of intermediate steps: animal x clearly
appears to be closely related to animal y. they both have a
bone, say a hip bone, which looks very similar in both
animals but is set at different angles. animal x has it,
say, at 30 degrees to the spine, and animal y has it at 50
degrees to the spine. the bone is useful at both positions,
but at any angle between the two, it would be useless, and
actually an impediment to locomotion. so you either have to
conclude that i) the animals gave up walking for a few
generations until the bone was rehinged, ii) the degree
shifted from 30 to 50 in a single generation, or iii) the
theory that one animal evolved from the other is not
supported by facts.

i have failed to find references to such problems on
your web site, and would be grateful if you could inform
me.

Response

From:

Mark Isaak

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

You are correct that inviable intermediate steps would
be a problem for evolution. However, remember that the
transitions are not between modern animals but between
ancestors and descendants, and that the intermediate steps
need not follow a direct path. Although there are cases
where intermediates are unknown, nobody has yet found a
case where intermediates are demonstrably improbable.
(Irreducible complexity fails to do so because it doesn't
take evolutionary mechanisms such as gene duplication,
coevolution, and change of function into account.)

Your bombardier beetle information is inaccurate; see
this FAQ for the full
story. Nor is the human eye an organ of perfection. Other
organisms have eyes whose retinas are not partially
obscured by the blood vessels that server them, not to
mention the fact that various animals excel humans in
visual acuity, dark sight, range of peripheral vision,
infrared or ultraviolet vision, and more. Nothwithstanding
all that, organs of perfection would not, of themselves,
contradict evolution. Darwin, in chapter 6 of
Origin of Species, adequately covered how eyes could
evolve.

Facts which are against a theory cause the theory either
to be modified or discarded. In the case of evolution, the
theory has been modified from Darwin's original to include
Mendelian genetics, population genetics, horizontal
transfer, and other more recent findings. Thus, what you (I
gather) would call "ugly facts" have been incorporated into
the theory to make it stronger. The problems which face
evolution today are mainly disputes over specific details
(e.g., where turtles branched off from other reptiles) and
general areas that are still unknown (e.g., how common is
speciation without geographical isolation). If you want to
learn about them, though, you have to read current
scientific journals. Creationists rarely come up with any
"problem" that hasn't already been resolved at least 50
years ago.

Feedback Letter

From:

Edwin

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

Comment:

I have gone
through 2 years of high school biology and so far one year
of college biology and will be four when I finally
graduate. I also went to a Catholic grade school, Catholic
high school, and now a Jesuit university. One thing that
constantly sticks in my mind when we learn about evolution
is something I saw on a creationist video. It shows a tree
petrified through layers of sediments from the roots to the
top of the tree. The tree is standing vertically, so how do
evolutionists explain this fossil evidence? It had to be
covered instantly by 25-35 ft. of sediment, and that would
have taken thousands or hundreds of thousands of years,
right?

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.

By the way, this is not a question for "evolutionists."
So-called polystrate fossils were explained by creationist
geologists in the 1800s. That modern-day young-earth
creationists use such arguments shows the poverty of their
scholarship.

Feedback Letter

Comment:

Excellent!
One of my friends is a minister and we have a good time
debating. I found this site exciting/helpful for the
debates! Thank you.

Response

From:

Kenneth Fair

Our apologies, but you must have JavaScript enabled
to view author contact information.